Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Drug Insight: recent advances in male hormonal contraception

Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism volume 2, pages 32–41 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

As there are limitations to current methods of male contraception, research has been undertaken to develop hormonal contraceptives for men, analogous to the methods for women based on estrogen and progestogens. When testosterone is administered to a man, it functions as a contraceptive by suppressing the secretion of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) from the pituitary gland. Since these hormones are the main stimulatory signals for spermatogenesis, low levels of LH and FSH markedly impair sperm production. After 3–4 months of testosterone treatment, 60–70% of men no longer have sperm in their ejaculate, and most other men exhibit markedly diminished sperm counts. Male hormonal contraception is well tolerated, free of serious adverse side effects, and 95% effective in the prevention of pregnancy. Importantly, male hormonal contraception is reversible, with sperm counts usually recovering within 4 months of the discontinuation of hormone treatment. Because exogenous testosterone administration alone does not completely suppress sperm production in all men, researchers have combined testosterone with second agents, such as progestogens or gonadotropin-releasing-hormone antagonists, to further suppress secretion of LH and FSH and improve suppression of spermatogenesis. Recent trials have used combinations of long-acting injectable or implantable forms of testosterone with progestogens, which can be administered orally, by injection or by a long-acting implant. Such combinations suppress spermatogenesis to zero without severe side effects in 80–90% of men, with near-complete suppression in the remainder of individuals. One of these testosterone and progestogen combination regimens might soon bring the promise of male hormonal contraception to fruition.

Key Points

  • The administration of exogenous testosterone and progestogens results in suppression of sperm production that might allow their use in a male contraceptive

  • The tolerability and side-effect profiles of these regimens are favorable

  • Such regimens are currently 95% effective at pregnancy prevention

  • Improved potency and methods of drug delivery might allow for the introduction of such a hormonally based male contraceptive in the next 10 years

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: The endocrinology of spermatogenesis and male hormonal contraception.
Figure 2: Mean sperm counts in men treated with 1,000 mg of testosterone undecanoate every 8 weeks alone (diamonds) or with 150 mg (squares) or 300 mg (triangles) of medroxyprogesterone acetate every 8 weeks (arrows).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anonymous (1999) Notice to readers: world's population to reach six billion. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 48: 859

  2. Henshaw SK (1998) Unintended pregnancy in the US. Fam Plann Perspect 30: 24–29

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Besculides M and Laraque F (2004) Unintended pregnancy among the urban poor. J Urban Health 81: 340–348

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Piccinino LJ and Mosher WD (1998) Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982–1995. Fam Plan Perspect 30: 4–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin CW et al. (2000) Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: cross-cultural implications for development of novel male preparations. Human Reprod 15: 637–645

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Heinemann K et al. (2005) Attitudes toward male fertility control: results of a multinational survey on four continents. Hum Reprod 20: 549–556

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Glasier AF et al. (2000) Would women trust their partners to use a male pill? Human Reprod 15: 646–649

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Heckel MJ (1939) Production of oligospermia in a man by the use of testosterone propionate. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 40: 658–659

    Google Scholar 

  9. World Health Organization Task Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male Fertility (1990) Contraceptive efficacy of testosterone-induced azoospermia in normal men. Lancet 336: 995–999

  10. Handelsman DJ et al. (1995) Factors in nonuniform induction of azoospermia by testosterone enanthate in normal men. Fertil Steril 63: 125–133

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. World Health Organization Task Force on Methods for the Regulation of Male Fertility (1996) Contraceptive efficacy of testosterone-induced azoospermia and oligozoospermia in normal men. Fertil Steril 65: 821–829

  12. Gu Y-Q et al. (2003) A multicenter contraceptive efficacy study of injectable testosterone undecanoate in healthy Chinese men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88: 562–568

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turner L et al. (2003) Contraceptive efficacy of a depot progestin and androgen combination in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88: 4659–4667

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nieschlag E et al. (2003) Sixth summit meeting consensus: recommendations for regulatory approval for hormonal male contraception. Int J Androl 25: 375

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bagatell CJ et al. (1994) Metabolic and behavioral effects of high-dose, exogenous testosterone in healthy men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 79: 561–567

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Meriggiola MC et al. (1995) Testosterone enanthate at the dose 200 mg/week decreases HDL-cholesterol levels in healthy men. Int J Androl 18: 237–242

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zitzmann M et al. (2002) Contraceptive steroids influence the hemostatic activation state in healthy men. J Androl 23: 503–511

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sjögren B and Gottlieb C (2001) Testosterone for male contraception during one year: attitudes, well-being and quality of sex life. Contraception 64: 59–65

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ringheim K (1995) Evidence for the acceptability of an injectable hormonal method for men. Fam Plann Perspect 27: 123–128

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coert A et al. (1975) The pharmacology and metabolism of testosterone undecanoate (TU), a new orally active androgen. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh) 79: 789–800

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang GY et al. (1998) A pharmacokinetic study of injectable testosterone undecanoate in hypogonadal men. J Androl 19: 761–768

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Behre AM et al. (1999) Intramuscular injection of testosterone undecanoate for the treatment of male hypogonadism: phase I studies. Eur J Endrocrinol 140: 414–419

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang GY et al. (1999) Injectable testosterone undecanoate for contraception in Chinese men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 3642–3647

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kamischke A et al. (2000) Intramuscular testosterone undecanoate with or without oral levonorgestrel: a randomized placebo-controlled feasibility study for male contraception. Clinical Endocrinol 53: 43–52

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamischke A et al. (2001) Intramuscular testosterone undecanoate and norethisterone enanthate in a clinical trial for male contraception. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86: 303–309

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Junaidi A et al. (2005) Norethisterone enanthate has neither a direct effect on the testis nor on the epididymis: a study in adult male cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Eur J Endocrinol 152: 655–661

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schearer SB et al. (1978) Hormonal contraception for men. Int J Androl 2: 680–695

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fotherby K et al. (1972) Effect of low doses of synthetic progestagens on testicular function. Int J Fertil 17: 113–119

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Barfield A et al. (1977) Pregnancies associated with sperm concentrations below 10 million/ml in clinical studies of a potential male contraceptive method, monthly depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and testosterone esters. Contraception 20: 121–127

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bebb RA et al. (1996) Combined administration of levonorgestrel and testosterone induces more rapid and effective suppression of spermatogenesis than testosterone alone: a promising male contraceptive approach. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81: 757–762

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Anawalt BD et al. (1999) A lower dosage levonorgestrel and testosterone combination effectively suppresses spermatogenesis and circulating gonadotropin levels with fewer metabolic effects than higher dosage combinations. J Androl 20: 407–414

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Anawalt BD et al. (2005) Very low-dosage oral levonorgestrel plus intramuscular testosterone enanthate suppresses spermatogenesis without causing weight gain in normal young men: a randomized clinical trial. J Androl 26: 405–413

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gui YL et al. (2004) Male hormonal contraception: suppression of spermatogenesis by injectable testosterone undecanoate alone or with levonorgestrel implants in Chinese men. J Androl 25: 720–727

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wu FC et al. (1999) Oral progestogen combined with testosterone as a potential male contraceptive: additive effects between desogestrel and testosterone enanthate in suppression of spermatogenesis, pituitary–testicular axis, and lipid metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 112–122

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Anawalt BD et al. (2000) Desogestrel plus testosterone effectively suppresses spermatogenesis but also causes modest weight gain and high-density lipoprotein suppression. Fertil Steril 74: 707–714

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kinniburgh D et al. (2002) Oral desogestrel with testosterone pellets induces consistent suppression of spermatogenesis to azoospermia in both Caucasian and Chinese men. Hum Reprod 17: 1490–1501

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Anderson RA et al. (2002) Investigation of hormonal male contraception in African men: suppression of spermatogenesis by oral desogestrel with depot testosterone. Hum Reprod 17: 2869–2877

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hay CJ et al. (2005) A multicenter phase IIb study of a novel combination of intramuscular androgen (testosterone decanoate) and oral progestogen (etonogestrel) for male hormonal contraception. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90: 2042–2049

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Anderson RA et al. (2002) Suppression of spermatogenesis by etonogestrel implants with depot testosterone: potential for long-acting male contraception. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87: 3640–3649

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Brady DM et al. A multi-centre study investigating subcutaneous etonogestrel implants with injectable testosterone decanoate as a potential long-acting male contraceptive. Hum Reprod, in press

  41. Neumann F and Topert M (1986) Pharmacology of antiandrogens. J Steroid Biochem 25: 885–895

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Meriggiola MC et al. (1996) A combined regimen of cyproterone acetate and testosterone enanthate as a potentially highly effective male contraceptive. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81: 3018–3023

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Meriggiola MC et al. (1998) Low dose of cyproterone acetate and testosterone enanthate for contraception in men. Hum Reprod 13: 1225–1229

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Meriggiola MC et al. (1997) An oral regimen of cyproterone acetate and testosterone for spermatogenic suppression in men. Fertil Steril 68: 844–850

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Meriggiola MC et al. (2002) Twenty-one day administration of dienogest reversibly suppresses gonadotropins and testosterone in normal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87: 2107–2113

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kamischke A et al. (2000) Potential of norethisterone enanthate for male contraception: pharmacokinetics and suppression of pituitary and gonadal function. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 53: 351–358

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kamischke A et al. (2001) Intramuscular testosterone undecanoate and norethisterone enanthate in a clinical trial for male contraception. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86: 303–309

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Meriggiola MC et al. (2005) Norethisterone enanthate plus testosterone undecanoate for male contraception: effects of various injection intervals of spermatogenesis, reproductive hormones, testis and prostate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90: 2005–2014

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kamischke A et al. (2002) An effective hormonal male contraceptive using testosterone undecanoate with oral or injectable norethisterone preparations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87: 530–539

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gu YQ et al. (2004) Male hormonal contraception: effects of injections of testosterone undecanoate and depot medroxyprogesterone acetate at eight-week intervals in Chinese men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89: 2254–2262

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Pavlou SN et al. (1991) Combined administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist and testosterone in men induces reversible azoospermia without loss of libido. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 73: 1360–1369

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Tom L et al. (1992) Induction of azoospermia in normal men with combined Nal–Glu gonadotropin-releasing hormone and testosterone enanthate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 75: 476–483

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bagatell CJ et al. (1993) Comparison of a gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist plus testosterone (T) versus T alone as potential male contraceptive regimens. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 77: 427–432

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Swerdloff RS et al. (1998) Suppression of spermatogenesis in man induced by Nal–Glu gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist and testosterone enanthate (TE) is maintained by TE alone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83: 3527–3533

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Behre HM et al. (2001) Suppression of spermatogenesis to azoospermia by combined administration of GnRH antagonist and 19-nortestosterone cannot be maintained by this non-aromatizable androgen alone. Hum Reprod 16: 2570–2577

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Tomera K et al. (2001) The gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist abarelix depot versus luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists leuprolide or goserelin: initial results of endocrinological and biochemical efficacies in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 165: 1585–1589

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Herbst KL et al. (2004) Acyline, a gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist suppresses gonadotropins and testosterone for 15 days after a single dose. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89: 5959–5965

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Matthiesson KL et al. (2005) Novel male hormonal contraceptive combinations: the hormonal and spermatogenic effects of testosterone and levonorgestrel combined with a 5-α-reductase inhibitor or GnRH antagonist. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90: 91–97

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cho N et al. (1998) Discovery of a novel, potent and orally active nonpeptide antagonist of the human luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) receptor. J Med Chem 41: 4190–4195

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Buchter D et al. (1999) Clinical trial of transdermal testosterone and oral levonorgestrel for male contraception. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 1244–1249

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hair WM et al. (2001) A novel male contraceptive pill–patch combination: oral desogestrel and transdermal testosterone in the suppression of spermatogenesis in normal men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86: 5201–5209

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Gonzalo IT et al. (2002) Levonorgestrel implants (Norplant II) for male contraception clinical trials: combination with transdermal and injectable testosterone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87: 3562–3572

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Guerin JF and Rollet J (1988) Inhibition of spermatogenesis in men using various combinations of oral progestagens and percutaneous or oral androgens. Int J Androl 11: 187–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pollanen P et al. (2001) Combination of subcutaneous levonorgestrel implants and transdermal dihydrotestosterone gel for male hormonal contraception. Int J Androl 24: 369–380

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Steidle C et al. (2003) AA2500 testosterone gel normalizes androgen levels in aging males with improvements in body composition and sexual function. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88: 2673–2681

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Rosen J and Negro-Vilar A (2002) Novel, non-steroidal, selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) with anabolic activity in bone and muscle and improved safety profile. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 2: 222–224

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Chen J et al. (2005) A selective androgen receptor modulator for hormonal male contraception. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 213: 546–553

    Google Scholar 

  68. Amory JK and Bremner WJ (2005) Oral testosterone in oil plus dutasteride: a pharmacokinetic study in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90: 2610–2617

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Wallace EM et al. (1993) Comparison between testosterone enanthate-induced azoospermia and oligoazoospermia in a male contraceptive study I: plasma luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, testosterone, estradiol and inhibin concentrations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 77: 290–293

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Amory JK et al. (2001) Daily testosterone and gonadotropin levels are similar in azoospermic and nonazoospermic normal men administered weekly testosterone: implications for male contraceptive development. J Androl 2001 22: 1053–1060

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. McLachlan RI et al. (2004) Relationship between serum gonadotropins and spermatogenic suppression in men undergoing steroidal contraceptive treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89: 142–149

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Anderson RA et al. (1996) Comparison between testosterone enanthate-induced azoospermia and oligozoospermia in a male contraceptive study. III. Higher 5α-reductase activity in oligozoospermic men administered supraphysiological doses of testosterone. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81: 902–908

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. McLachlan RI et al. (2002) Effects of testosterone plus medroxyprogesterone acetate on semen quality, reproductive hormones, and germ cell populations in normal young men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87: 546–556

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. McLachlan RI et al. (2000) Efficacy and acceptability of testosterone implants, alone or in combination with a 5α-reductase inhibitor, for male hormonal contraception. Contraception 62: 73–78

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Kinniburgh D et al. (2001) Suppression of spermatogenesis with desogestrel and testosterone pellets is not enhanced by addition of finasteride. J Androl 22: 88–95

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Zhang FP et al. (2003) The low gonadotropin-independent constitutive production of testicular testosterone is sufficient to maintain spermatogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 13692–13697

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Meriggiola MC et al. (2002) Higher testosterone dose impairs sperm suppression induced by a combined androgen–progestin regimen. J Androl 23: 684–690

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Yu B and Handelsman DJ (2001) Pharmacogenetic polymorphisms of the AR and metabolism and susceptibility to hormone-induced azoospermia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86: 4406–4411

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Eckardstein et al. (2002) CAG repeat length in the androgen receptor gene and gonadotrophin suppression influence the effectiveness of hormonal male contraception. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 57: 647–655

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

JK Amory is supported, in part, by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, a division of the National Institutes of Health, by grant 1K23 HD45386-10A1, and has research funding from Schering AG and GlaxoSmithKline. WJ Bremner and JK Amory are also supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through cooperative agreements U54-HD-12629 and U54 HD42454 as part of the specialized Cooperative Centers Program in Reproductive Research and the Cooperative Contraceptive Research Centers Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor of Medicine, ST Page is an Acting Instructor in Medicine and WJ Bremner is a Professor of Medicine and the Chairman of the Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    John K Amory, Stephanie T Page & William J Bremner

Authors
  1. John K Amory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie T Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William J Bremner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John K Amory.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

JK Amory has research funding from Schering AG and GlaxoSmithKline.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amory, J., Page, S. & Bremner, W. Drug Insight: recent advances in male hormonal contraception. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2, 32–41 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpendmet0069

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpendmet0069

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing